Case C-41/24, Waltham Abbey Residents Association: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 22 January 2024 – Waltham Abbey Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General
Date: 2024-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disclosure of information, environmental impact, investment project, precautionary principle, property development, protected area, protected species








C_202402289EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2289


2.4.2024





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 22 January 2024 — Waltham Abbey Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General
(Case C-41/24, Waltham Abbey Residents Association)
(C/2024/2289)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Waltham Abbey Residents Association

Respondents: An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General

Notice party: O’Flynn Construction Co. Unlimited Company

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 4(4) of and/or paragraph 3 of Annex IIA to Directive 2011/92 (1), as amended by Directive 2014/52 (2), interpreted in the light of the precautionary principle, have the effect in a case where information under Annex IIA to the Directive should be furnished, and where there is material before the competent authority that a species or habitat might be affected by the project, that the developer concerned should obtain all relevant information on species or habitats that may be affected by the project by conducting or obtaining scientific surveys that are adequate to remove doubt about significant effects on such species or habitats, and that in the absence of the results of such surveys, the competent authority should be informed of and required to proceed on the basis of the absence of sufficient information to exclude doubt as to whether the project will have significant effects on the environment?










2.


Does Article 4(4) of and/or paragraph 3 of Annex IIA to Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52, interpreted in the light of the precautionary principle, have the effect in a case where information under Annex IIA to the Directive should be furnished, that the competent authority is required to exclude doubt as to the possibility of significant effects on the environment if it proposes not to subject the project to an assessment under Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive, and thus that where in the course of a determination under Article 4(2) of the Directive, a competent authority objectively lacks sufficient information to exclude doubt as to whether the project will have significant effects on the environment, the project should be required to be subjected to an assessment under Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive?










3.


If the answer to the first question in general is no, do such consequences arise insofar as the potential significant effect on the environment relates to species that may be affected by the project where such species are entitled to strict protection under Article 12 of Directive 92/43 (3), having regard inter alia to the importance of such species as recognised in Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2011/92 and Recital 11 to Directive 2014/52?










4.


Does Article 4(4) of and/or paragraph 3 of Annex IIA to Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52, interpreted in the light of the precautionary principle, have the effect that, if, following the provision of information by the developer pursuant to Annex IIA of the Directive, additional information is provided by another party to the competent authority objectively capable of creating a doubt as to the effect of the project on the environment, either the developer is required to provide further information to the competent authority which would exclude such doubt or to inform the competent authority of the absence of such information, or the competent authority itself is required to obtain further information which would exclude such doubt or alternatively to determine that assessment under Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive is required in the absence of sufficient information to exclude doubt as to whether the project will have significant effects on the environment?










5.


If the answer to the fourth question in general is no, do such consequences arise insofar as the potential significant effect on the environment relates to species that may be affected by the project where such species are entitled to strict protection under Article 12 of Council Directive 92/43, having regard inter alia to the importance of such species as recognised in Article 3(l)(b) of Directive 2011/92 and Recital 11 to Directive 2014/52?






(1)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012, L 26, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2014, L 124, p. 1).

(3)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2289/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)